Union of India & Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1889, examined a similar issue and observed as under:- "........ The court held that as it would apply in future to the existing employees and does not take away the rights of the persons who have already retired, the amendment was not retrospective and those persons who were already in service and were expecting to retire at the age of 58 years and would now be required to retire at the age of 55, cannot claim that the Rules have been amended with retrospective effect taking away their accrued rights. Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2012; and State of U.
The legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. State of Haryana & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 281, this Court observed that it was well-established that Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, being legislative in nature and character, could be given effect to retrospectively. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 161, observed as under:- "The legislature is undoubtedly competent to legislate with retrospective effect to take away or impair any vested right acquired under existing laws but since the laws are made under a written Constitution, and have to conform to the do's & dont's of the Constitution, neither prospective nor retrospective laws can be made so as to contravene fundamental rights.
Even at that stage, he made all attempts to get rid of them.
The High Court failed to appreciate that the chargesheet had been duly approved by the CMD, ECL. The second show cause notice and the copy of the inquiry report had been sent to him under registered post. In the instant case, proceedings were held ex-parte against the delinquent as he failed to appear in spite of notice and such a course of the inquiry officer was justified (See: State of U. The delinquent waited till the conclusion of the purported fresh enquiry initiated on 17.1.2002, even though he could have challenged the same having been initiated by a person not competent to initiate the proceedings and being in contravention of the orders passed by the High Court earlier. Unfortunately, both the parties proceeded with the case without any sense of responsibility, as subsequent to disposal of the writ petition and appeal by the High Court, the statutory appeal filed by the delinquent after 15 months of imposition of punishment was entertained, though the limitation prescribed under the Rules 1978 is only 30 days and appeal has been dismissed on merit without dealing with the issue of limitation. It has to pass a speaking order and cannot be an ipse dixit either of the inquiry officer or the authority. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 395; Union of India v.
The High Court ought to have refused to entertain the writ petition on the grounds that the delinquent had also been found guilty of serious misconduct earlier; did not participate in the inquiry and it was concluded ex-parte. & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 663, has clearly held that the law which is to be applied in a case is the law prevailing on the date of decision making. Therefore, there is a presumption in law, particularly, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 that the addressee has received the materials sent by post. In such a fact-situation, the High Court ought to have refused to entertain his writ petition. It clearly shows that both sides considered the litigation as a luxury and that the appellants have been wasting public time and money without taking the matter seriously. The Statutory rules clearly stipulate that the enquiry could be initiated either by the CMD, CIL or by the CMD of the Subsidiary Company.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 16.8.2007 on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not ensure compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 8.8.2001, which stood confirmed by the Division Bench and also on the ground that the fresh inquiry was not initiated by the competent authority as it was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty (hereinafter called as OSD) and had been merely seen by the CMD, ECL. In fact, the inquiry had been initiated by the OSD, of the ECL and CMD, ECL also did not even approve it, rather he put his signature without making any observation whatsoever. The court had also made an observation that the disciplinary authority had been biased and prejudiced towards the delinquent and proceedings had been initiated with pre-determined mind to punish him. In view of the provisions of Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules 1978, proceedings could be initiated even by the CMD, ECL and after conclusion of the inquiry, if the facts warrant imposition of major penalty, the matter could be referred to the CMD, CIL for the purpose of awarding the punishment, as he was the only competent authority to award major punishments. In such a fact- situation, it was not permissible for the appellants to proceed on the basis of the chargesheet issued earlier. ECL-5(D)/113/1070/320 dated 26.7.1991 issued to Dr. nothing on record to show that he had put his signature after applying his mind. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. It is settled legal proposition that result of the fresh inquiry in such a case relates back to the date of termination. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the result of the inquiry in such a fact-situation relates back to the date of imposition of punishment, earlier stands fortified by the large number of judgments of this Court and particularly in R. Presiding Officer & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 637; Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd.
22658(W) of 2005 challenging the said order of punishment. 2852 of 2007, however, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal observing that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by an authority not competent to initiate such proceedings and no person other than the CMD, CIL could initiate the same. The CMD, CIL was competent to impose any major penalty and against the order of punishment, appeal is provided to the Board of Directors, CIL. The High Court had given liberty to the appellants to hold de- novo enquiry, meaning thereby that the entire earlier proceedings including the chargesheet issued earlier stood quashed. In the above circumstances, it is proposed that an Inquiring Authority and a Presenting Officer may be appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry in terms of the order dated 8.8.2001 of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court for a fresh enquiry into the chargesheet No. Kalla Hospital, for this purpose the following names are furnished. The question of back wages shall be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law only on the conclusion of the fresh enquiry. Kala Singh etc., AIR 1997 SC 2661; and Graphite India Ltd.
The Hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The law must satisfy the requirements of the Constitution today taking into account the accrued or acquired rights of the parties today." 16.